I just checked one out and it looks good and feels very well made. Went ahead and ordered one. Just looking for any good, honest, non-biased reviews. I have more expensive and less expensive glass, but I like the features they have. Anyone used one yet?

I have a 2.5-16x42 Mil Dot and a 4.5-30x50 Mil Dot and if you can live with a very limited selection of reticles I would say that they are both excellent hunting scopes. Very clear, not too heavy and extremely versatile. The 2.5-16x42 has almost 4" eye relief and a 41 ft field of view @ 100 yards on low power. All of that with side parallax setting and only weighs in at 17 oz. The only negative that I can see is that on higher powers especially with the 4.5-30x50 the sight picture seems to "white out" a bit or loose some resolution but I don't hunt on 30x anyway. Those higher powers are reserved for use as a spotting scope at the shooting range. That is my honest to goodness opinion.

Doug

but you brethren are not of the flesh but of the spirit if indeed the spirit of Christ dwells within you...Romans 8

I bought a 2.5-16x50 6500 almost a year ago to put on my tricked-out M1A.

I liked it so much that I bought an identical one to put on my Weatherby 340 Mk V Accumark for an Alaskan bear I have scheduled for September. I had a brief issue with the turret sticking on the newer one (see April 25 thread), but nothing a vice grip and a few half-second of gentle determination would not cure.

I don't own a Zeiss or Swaro scope, so I can't compare them. But the 6500 is very clear to me at all ranges and magnifications I can imagine using in the field. The adjustments are very intuitive and easy to use.

The only thing I can't figure out is the eye-piece knob. I read the manual and still don't get it. There's no downside to it that I can see, but I just keep it wound down, and everything works great. Can anyone tell me what it does/is supposed to do?

I bought a 2.5-16x50 6500 almost a year ago to put on my tricked-out M1A.

I liked it so much that I bought an identical one to put on my Weatherby 340 Mk V Accumark for an Alaskan bear I have scheduled for September. I had a brief issue with the turret sticking on the newer one (see April 25 thread), but nothing a vice grip and a few half-second of gentle determination would not cure.

I don't own a Zeiss or Swaro scope, so I can't compare them. But the 6500 is very clear to me at all ranges and magnifications I can imagine using in the field. The adjustments are very intuitive and easy to use.

The only thing I can't figure out is the eye-piece knob. I read the manual and still don't get it. There's no downside to it that I can see, but I just keep it wound down, and everything works great. Can anyone tell me what it does/is supposed to do?

Eyepiece knob? you mean the focus ring on the eyepiece?

Set the scope parallax knob (side-focus) to infinity and look at the sky. Then rotate the eyepiece focus as far out as it will go. At this point the reticle will not look very sharp. Slowly rotate the eyepiece focus ring in about quarter turn at the time, until the reticle looks as sharp as possible. Make sure you glance somewhere else frequently, to let your eye rest.

I received the 6500 the other day. Looks good, the reticle is plenty thick, field of view is ok, kind of narrow but better than the 12-42 nightforce I used to have. Kind of torn, may just use it and if Bushnell ever comes out with a better reticle I should be able to have it changed for a decent price, does anybody do custom reticles for bushnells? I just wish they said B&L instead of Bushnell, it is hard to shake the rap that some of the cheap scopes gave them.

I don't have any experience with the SIII, but in my opinion, the NF has a little better optics than the Black Diamond.

I've heard some say that the SIII has better optics than NF, but again, I have no first hand experience with the SIII series.

The main advantage to NF, and the main reason for its higher price, is that it is designed to be very rugged mechanically for extreme use, being a purpose built tactical scope. It also has an illuminated reticle and the other two don't, which also contributes to the higher price. Whether or not it is worth the extra price tag is a personal decision based on what you intend to use the scope for.

Personally, I like NF's version of the standard mil dot better than other mil dots because it is an open, thin design. For the type of shooting I do with these scopes, I prefer the thinner reticle and "open" style dots that obscure less of the target. The illuminated reticle option takes care of the problem of losing the thin reticle in low light.

Ted

Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.

I think I'd bump the 6500 up one spot for sure. The quality of it seems a little better to the Sightrons I have checked out, very solidly built. I will get it out in the prairie in a couple weeks and give it a comparison to Leupold, Zeiss, Nikon, 3200, and Swarovski.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum